(1.) This revision-petition is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi and Chamba Districts, whereby, an appeal of the petitioners, against their conviction, for offences, under the Public Gambling Act. was dismissed. The prosecution case against the petitioners was as under: Shri Gangbir Singh PW-2, District Superintendent of Police, Mandi District, had received credible information that Harji petitioner was using his house, situated in Mohalla Thanera, Mandi, Town, as a common flaming house. Acting on this information, Shri Gangbir Singh, along with Jagdish Chand PW-4, S. H. O., Mandi, had raided the house of Harji petitioner on the night of the 29th October, 1062, at 11.00 p.m. Amar Singh PW-2 and Tarlok Singh PW-3, two respectable persons of the locality, were also associated with the raid. The door of the house of Harji petitioner had been bolted from inside. It was got opened. The raiding party had found that Devi Rup and Dila Ram petitioners were playing cards and Harji petitioner was sitting on a cot by their side. Currency notes of the value of Rs. 365/- were found lying on the floor, under the knee of Dila Ram petitioner. On a search of the bedding, lying on the cot, on which Harji petitioner was sitting, sixteen corries, kept in an empty match-box, were recovered from underneath the pillow. Shri Gangbir Singh had taken into possession the playing cards, the currency notes and the corries.
(2.) On the above facts, Harji petitioner was hauled up and charge-sheeted, under Section 3, and Devi Rup and Dila Ram petitioners were hauled up and charge- sheeted, under Section 4 of the Public Gambling Act.
(3.) The petitioners denied the charges, levelled against them. They denied that the house of Harji petitioner was being used as a common gaming house. The petitioners pleaded that Devi Rup and Dila Ram petitioners were playing cards for passing time and not for stakes or for profit. So far as the recovery of currency notes from underneath the knee of Dila Ram petitioner was concerned, it was pleaded that Dila Ram petitioner, who was a driver of a truck, had received the amount on the basis of G.R.'s and was counting the amount at the time of the raid. The petitioners produced defence evidence.